125
Here is why banning weapons won't set us free from fear : Swingers Discussion 2139541081
Busy Swingers Forum - everything you always wanted to know about swingers.
SwingLifeStyle Swingers Personal Ads. | SwingLifeStyle Swingers Clubs

Busy Swingers Forum

Everything you always wanted to know about swingers.

Create A Free Account

HELP
FORUMSGeneral DiscussionsPoliticsHere is why banning weapons won't set us free from fear
TOPIC: Here is why banning weapons won't set us free from fear
GoTo Page: Less ... 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Start   81 to 90 of 167   End
User Details are only visible to members.
Can a person bear a nuclear weapon TBR? I was expecting this, do you know how many civilians have access to nuclear material that can be used to kill mass amounts of people? Do you know how easy it would be for them? Is there a problem with it?

And yes I believe felons have as much right once they serve their time to bear arms. I mean that is why we send them to prison, to atone for their crimes. If we all have the right to self defense why should their families be subject to mayhem? Did they commit a crime? Besides the fact, a overbearing fact that it does not work. Criminal do have guns, they are criminals for Christ's sake. Does anybody in their right mind think they care about stupid gun laws? They break laws, that is why they are criminals.

Sanford NC
Username hidden
(19237 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
If we are to take your assertion at face value, then felons should be able to own guns, or you should be able to own a nuclear weapon.

They can't and you can't.

I rest my case.

Lakeside CA
Username hidden
(17354 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
The purpose of government is to screw the people, the people who founded this country knew that. That is the reason safeguards were put in place, it doesn't do any good though when the government ignores those safe guards.

It is our own fault though, we let the government get out of hand. Actually I believe this fiscal cliff will be a good thing, or I hope.

Sanford NC
Username hidden
(19237 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Good there are no rules in the forums as to who can get in a discussion. Wayne only says we are supposed to be nice. I like discussions with TBR when they are polite, I respect him when he presents his position in an intelligent manner.

Sanford NC
Username hidden
(19237 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Sorry about getting in the middle of your discussion tbr and fj.

Brooklyn Park MN
Username hidden
(3843 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Outdoors, you asked what I may suggest as a "solution", I noted some before, but to respond to your recent question:

Improved law enforcement access to mental health records, and responding to 911 calls involving the applicant, for applications to purchase, posses, and carry firearms.

Requiring firearms, when in storage, to be stored in such a manner that they are inaccessible to anyone but the owner. Such as the storage area having a fingerprint activated lock.

Brooklyn Park MN
Username hidden
(3843 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
TBR, only one right in the constitution uses the words "SHALL NOT be infringed".

And all other rights are contingent on acts not tools. Tongues cannot be cut out because the state believes it would be best. Fingers cannot be cut off to limit writings. All rights except for the second are contingent on acts. And let's remember that BOR was never about control of people, it always was about control of government over the people.

Sanford NC
Username hidden
(19237 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
That is incorrect.

No right in the constitution is absolute. Not speech, not religion, not search and seizure, and not gun rights.

There is always the provision for reasonable restrictions. The debate, as it always does, hinges on the word "reasonable."

Lakeside CA
Username hidden
(17354 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
I'm curious, how do people here interpret "shall not be infringed"?

Brooklyn Park MN
Username hidden
(3843 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Actually it does TBR, the final words are "shall not be infringed". Almost every attorney and judge determine that laws that use "shall" is the same as being a must and not negotiable. Any federal law is a infringement, state laws before the civil war were not an infringement on federal BOR. The 14th amendment changed that giving civil rights to citizens of all states. Because of the 14th ALL firearm laws are unconstitutional, the courts just have not ruled the way until recently.

There is no such thing as a reasonable infringement, the founders did not give a out for that in the constitution. The only way to have constitutional gun laws is to change the constitution.

Sanford NC
Username hidden
(19237 posts)
GoTo Page: Less ... 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Start   81 to 90 of 167   End
TOPIC: Here is why banning weapons won't set us free from fear